Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[gtopa1]

DNSmith

Utopian

They are the Elite who guide ALL THE REST to a new life of slavery to them. Stuff'em.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.

What Marxist bullcrap have I spewed, phantom tracer? BTW, I am an American so, Marxism, communism,, conservatism and capitalism are all a part of my domestic experience. I am also a Christian so any leanings towards the first two ideologies spring from that. There is no failing there! I am also an entrepreneur capitalist pig like you...only less so. Materialism is your god...not mine!

Christ was a Communist Marxist?? Are you flamin' nuts?? Here's your thirty pieces of silver so p!ss off!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

C_Clayton

"For conservatives, therefore, the issue isn't so much one of 'morality,' but a lack of consistency and conviction."

Nonsense. Every Conservative I know is generous to a fault regarding the genuinely needy. The problem with liberals is that they want to maintain people in a lifestyle of dependency. It is a wrong desire. Dependency is soul destroying and results in pressures under which many families break down. There is NOTHING in any Conservative attitude that lacks conviction or consistency. By all means support the unemployed if needed UNTIL THEY FIND A JOB. Support the widows and orphans if they have no family to look after them. Assist those who are infirm and unable to provide for themselves.

But for the fools bludging on the system...stuff them!!

Greg

All ten of them?

If you believe that your ignorance knows no bounds. Sure, most of the people on welfare do really need the help, but I can count to 100 those in my small town alone who are capable of working and choose not to. That is what Greg is saying.

BTW Greg, nice to see you here.

If Greg needs an interpreter surely he could have picked a better one than you! Who , but an idiot would expect a sensible response to such a bad anecdote as that you posted above?

Assumptions don't count for much around here...try posting a few facts next time!

Who but an absolute idiot would make a post like you just did.

Hey, chuckles, get your friend "greg" to respond to my query about his anecdote and STFU. You have nothing meaningful to say...Butt out, or stay on topic...moron!

I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.

Oh gawd blimey: another of the "free sh!t army". Where do they crawl out from under their rocks??

Greg

 

[ShackledNation]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

 

[JQPublic1]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

HOW does gubmint subsidize Oil companies? Giving them TAX breaks to get the oil flowing? Producing revenue? Creating JOBS?

Tax breaks aren't giving them anything....but allowing them to KEEP their money to invest for commerce that affects the entire economy.

You Statists have alot to learn.

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Is there a working stiff out there passing for a “conservative” happy with
this?

Senate Republicans once again showed their stellar values by filibustering a bill that would have cut
corporate tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. That's right, Republicans are fighting to keep giving companies money to move jobs out of the United States:

When you quote the Daily Kos, the intelligent people on the board just laugh at you because they have nothing valid to say. The Guy who wrote that for the daily Kos likes to hear his sound bites but does not understand the reality.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post "The researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

Instead of believing bullcrap political rhetoric, why don't you read the studies made with empirical data? Or are you afraid you may learn something?

]Offshoring" has become a major bogeyman in the 2012 presidential campaign. But is it actually harmful for American workers in the long run? A new paper from the London School of Economics Center for Economic Performance suggests not.

That’s strange! European off shoring never got much of a foothold , yet ; a London based company has produced a study of its “positive” effects on the US labor force. How charming! I would have expected this kind of rubbish to come from the Heritage Foundation think tank ;not socialist aliens!
But in admonishing the writer of the DailoyKos article I linked, I hope you did notice the degree of uncertainty alluded to in the last sentence of the above paragraph from your liked article! See the word "suggests?" Believe it or not that word has meaning!
I think this graph settles the question once and for all; please pay attention to the linear graph on the right…

You choirboys have been postulating BS as of late! I am not responsible for your education but I help when I can, heh heh heh!

 

[ShackledNation]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

HOW does gubmint subsidize Oil companies? Giving them TAX breaks to get the oil flowing? Producing revenue? Creating JOBS?

Tax breaks aren't giving them anything....but allowing them to KEEP their money to invest for commerce that affects the entire economy.

You Statists have alot to learn.

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

There is only one way to accomplish that. Eliminate all corporate taxes and tax those who earn money from those companies.

I'd be fine with that. Or just getting rid of all the tax breaks an taxing all corporations equally.

 

[BluesLegend]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

They paid the most in taxes, its not rocket science the most as in way more than other companies. That doesn't sound like not paying their fair share.

As for these so called "tax breaks" are you aware they will eventually have to pay those taxes, they are only deferred. Have you asked yourself why they are allowed to defer them? Are you aware how risky exploration is and that to encourage them to take that risk, to risk their money, the government lets them write off the asset expenditures quickly. The alternative is less exploration and higher energy prices.

Are you aware that congress has at times allowed other businesses, especially small businesses to do the exact same thing, purchase an asset and take the entire write off in the first year, also to encourage economic growth?

It sounds like you have spent too much time listening to moronic liberal politicians trying to foment hatred of oil companies and too little time gathering your own facts and making up your own mind.

 

[dnsmith35]

C_Clayton

"For conservatives, therefore, the issue isn't so much one of 'morality,' but a lack of consistency and conviction."

Nonsense. Every Conservative I know is generous to a fault regarding the genuinely needy. The problem with liberals is that they want to maintain people in a lifestyle of dependency. It is a wrong desire. Dependency is soul destroying and results in pressures under which many families break down. There is NOTHING in any Conservative attitude that lacks conviction or consistency. By all means support the unemployed if needed UNTIL THEY FIND A JOB. Support the widows and orphans if they have no family to look after them. Assist those who are infirm and unable to provide for themselves.

But for the fools bludging on the system...stuff them!!

Greg

All ten of them?

If you believe that your ignorance knows no bounds. Sure, most of the people on welfare do really need the help, but I can count to 100 those in my small town alone who are capable of working and choose not to. That is what Greg is saying.

BTW Greg, nice to see you here.

If Greg needs an interpreter surely he could have picked a better one than you! Who , but an idiot would expect a sensible response to such a bad anecdote as that you posted above?

Assumptions don't count for much around here...try posting a few facts next time!

Who but an absolute idiot would make a post like you just did.

Hey, chuckles, get your friend "greg" to respond to my query about his anecdote and STFU. You have nothing meaningful to say...Butt out, or stay on topic...moron!

I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.

Oh gawd blimey: another of the "free sh!t army". Where do they crawl out from under their rocks??

Greg

The biggest problem with any form of socialism or communism is, they both require an autocratic/dictatorial government to take from the high achievers and give to the low achievers. That sounds like those who propose redistribution are saying.

 

[dnsmith35]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

The proper proportion for corporate taxation is 0%. Collect the taxes from the income of those who are getting profits from the company. All corporate taxes do is add one more pretty little reason to leave our shores, and many have done it. The reason is tax incidence. Look it up if you don't understand it.

 

[JQPublic1]

I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.

What Marxist bullcrap have I spewed, phantom tracer? BTW, I am an American so, Marxism, communism,, conservatism and capitalism are all a part of my domestic experience. I am also a Christian so any leanings towards the first two ideologies spring from that. There is no failing there! I am also an entrepreneur capitalist pig like you...only less so. Materialism is your god...not mine!

The US has never experienced Marxism or Communism. Capitalism is the only economic system which creates prosperity for the country and the most of the people. Christianity does not support any political ideology. Christ does want us to take care of the least of our brethren, and we in the US only do a half ass job at that, and apparently the humans around them don't do much more on their own. But when Christ said that, HE WAS TALKING TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT CEASAR. Smart ass remark, "all ten of them" said a lot about you, and it reflected ignorance of reality.

Where did I say that the US experienced Marxism or Communism? Perhaps you need to attend a reading comprehension class before we converse any further! My experience had to do with excercising my free will to learn about all economic systems of the world. I have never been afraid to point out either the benefits or the problems with any socio economic system. Freedom allows Americans to explore and discuss all ideologies including those made taboo by rich Americans.
Your attempt to intimidate your opposition by calling them Marxists or Communists won't work on me!
Now , Christ appeared on earth wayyyy before Marx did. So, he actually preceded Marx in altruistic socialism.
Can you interpret these words of Jesus any other way?:

Matthew 19:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

 

[JQPublic1]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

The proper proportion for corporate taxation is 0%. Collect the taxes from the income of those who are getting profits from the company. All corporate taxes do is add one more pretty little reason to leave our shores, and many have done it. The reason is tax incidence. Look it up if you don't understand it.

I take it you are not inline with the Republican notion that corporations are people.

If they are people they should pay taxes like PEOPLE!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

The proper proportion for corporate taxation is 0%. Collect the taxes from the income of those who are getting profits from the company. All corporate taxes do is add one more pretty little reason to leave our shores, and many have done it. The reason is tax incidence. Look it up if you don't understand it.

I take it you are not inline with the Republican notion that corporations are people.

If they are people they should pay taxes like PEOPLE!

Corporations don't generate income for themselves, sorry you don't understand that

 

[JQPublic1]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

The proper proportion for corporate taxation is 0%. Collect the taxes from the income of those who are getting profits from the company. All corporate taxes do is add one more pretty little reason to leave our shores, and many have done it. The reason is tax incidence. Look it up if you don't understand it.

I take it you are not inline with the Republican notion that corporations are people.

If they are people they should pay taxes like PEOPLE!

Corporations don't generate income for themselves, sorry you don't understand that

Then I guess they are NOT people, RIGHT? Do you understand THAT?

 

[JQPublic1]

C_Clayton

"For conservatives, therefore, the issue isn't so much one of 'morality,' but a lack of consistency and conviction."

Nonsense. Every Conservative I know is generous to a fault regarding the genuinely needy. The problem with liberals is that they want to maintain people in a lifestyle of dependency. It is a wrong desire. Dependency is soul destroying and results in pressures under which many families break down. There is NOTHING in any Conservative attitude that lacks conviction or consistency. By all means support the unemployed if needed UNTIL THEY FIND A JOB. Support the widows and orphans if they have no family to look after them. Assist those who are infirm and unable to provide for themselves.

But for the fools bludging on the system...stuff them!!

Greg

All ten of them?

If you believe that your ignorance knows no bounds. Sure, most of the people on welfare do really need the help, but I can count to 100 those in my small town alone who are capable of working and choose not to. That is what Greg is saying.

BTW Greg, nice to see you here.

If Greg needs an interpreter surely he could have picked a better one than you! Who , but an idiot would expect a sensible response to such a bad anecdote as that you posted above?

Assumptions don't count for much around here...try posting a few facts next time!

Who but an absolute idiot would make a post like you just did.

Hey, chuckles, get your friend "greg" to respond to my query about his anecdote and STFU. You have nothing meaningful to say...Butt out, or stay on topic...moron!

I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.

Oh gawd blimey: another of the "free sh!t army". Where do they crawl out from under their rocks??

Greg

The biggest problem with any form of socialism or communism is, they both require an autocratic/dictatorial government to take from the high achievers and give to the low achievers. That sounds like those who propose redistribution are saying.

Sorry to interrupt your right wing circle jerk but I have a question: are you calling our European allies autocrats or dictators. I thought you were more informed than that... hmmm ok.... I see you aren't.

 

[ShackledNation]

Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.

Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.

The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.

They paid the most in taxes, its not rocket science the most as in way more than other companies. That doesn't sound like not paying their fair share.

As for these so called "tax breaks" are you aware they will eventually have to pay those taxes, they are only deferred. Have you asked yourself why they are allowed to defer them? Are you aware how risky exploration is and that to encourage them to take that risk, to risk their money, the government lets them write off the asset expenditures quickly. The alternative is less exploration and higher energy prices.

Are you aware that congress has at times allowed other businesses, especially small businesses to do the exact same thing, purchase an asset and take the entire write off in the first year, also to encourage economic growth?

It sounds like you have spent too much time listening to moronic liberal politicians trying to foment hatred of oil companies and too little time gathering your own facts and making up your own mind.

If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.

 

[sameech]

When you quote the Daily Kos, the intelligent people on the board just laugh at you because they have nothing valid to say. The Guy who wrote that for the daily Kos likes to hear his sound bites but does not understand the reality.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post "The researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

Instead of believing bullcrap political rhetoric, why don't you read the studies made with empirical data? Or are you afraid you may learn something?

A US worker who does not have the skill set for one of those "more complex jobs" probably won't find much solace in his unemployment resulting in another job on the other side of the country.

 

[BluesLegend]

If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.

They paid nearly $300 billion in taxes and yet you persist in parroting the liberal oil company hate talking points. Liberals told you to hate them and you obeyed, its sad really.

 

[dnsmith35]

I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.

What Marxist bullcrap have I spewed, phantom tracer? BTW, I am an American so, Marxism, communism,, conservatism and capitalism are all a part of my domestic experience. I am also a Christian so any leanings towards the first two ideologies spring from that. There is no failing there! I am also an entrepreneur capitalist pig like you...only less so. Materialism is your god...not mine!

The US has never experienced Marxism or Communism. Capitalism is the only economic system which creates prosperity for the country and the most of the people. Christianity does not support any political ideology. Christ does want us to take care of the least of our brethren, and we in the US only do a half ass job at that, and apparently the humans around them don't do much more on their own. But when Christ said that, HE WAS TALKING TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT CEASAR. Smart ass remark, "all ten of them" said a lot about you, and it reflected ignorance of reality.

Where did I say that the US experienced Marxism or Communism? Perhaps you need to attend a reading comprehension class before we converse any further! My experience had to do with excercising my free will to learn about all economic systems of the world. I have never been afraid to point out either the benefits or the problems with any socio economic system. Freedom allows Americans to explore and discuss all ideologies including those made taboo by rich Americans.
Your attempt to intimidate your opposition by calling them Marxists or Communists won't work on me!
Now , Christ appeared on earth wayyyy before Marx did. So, he actually preceded Marx in altruistic socialism.
Can you interpret these words of Jesus any other way?:

Matthew 19:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

I don't try to intimidate anyone, so if you are intimidated by me it is your own conscience. I also did not say YOU said anything about America not experiencing Marxism or Communism. I said it. You should learn to read before you start accusing others. I say it like I see it. If you don't like what I say, please cursor on by.

I have degrees in economics and management and psychology to an EdS. I not only have studied the economic systems of the world, I have lived in a socialist country with socialist government. I am familiar with it 1st hand, and it isn't pretty. I could care less about rich Americans, but most have gotten there by making good choices. If you have observed the Fortune 400 list of the wealthy, it is changing all the time.

What works on you is your problem, not mine. Now to the bible:
The apostle Paul wrote in a letter to Christians:
“Brothers and sisters, keep away from Christians who are lazy. Such people do not live in the way that we taught you. We tell you to do this by the authority that the Lord Jesus Christ gives to us. You yourselves know very well that you should live as we did. We were not lazy when we were with you. We did not depend on any of you for our food without paying for it. No, we worked hard night and day. We earned what we needed. So we did not have to charge you anything at all. We did this, not because we do not have the right to expect such help. But we did it so as to be an example of how you should live. Because when we were with you, we gave you this rule: Whoever refuses to work should not eat.

We say this because we hear that some among you are lazy. They talk about other people but do no work themselves. By the authority that we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge them to work quietly. They must earn the money to buy their own food. But you, brothers and sisters, must never tire of doing good things."

BTW, the KJV of the Bible is the Catholic Bible translated into English at the behest of King James. Altruism is Christ like, and I follow that to the nth degree.

 

[ShackledNation]

If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.

They paid nearly $300 billion in taxes and yet you persist in parroting the liberal oil company hate talking points. Liberals told you to hate them and you obeyed, its sad really.

What matters is the percentage of income paid relative to other companies, not the total. This is an incredibly easy point to grasp. Would you support taxing a person making $10,000 at 30%, and a person making $1 million at 1%? Do you understand how that compares to companies that receive special tax privileges?

Exxon Mobile is won of the most profitable companies, meaning it should pay one of the highest corporate tax rates. Yet it pays an average of 17.6% in corporate taxes, higher than the average individual effective income tax rate.
Exxon Mobil Dodges the Tax Man Center for American Progress

What I am criticizing is the government picking and choosing corporations and industries to subsidize. That fosters an enormous amount of corruption and rent-seeking and runs contrary to basic free market principles. A corporate socialist is not a capitalist.

 

[dnsmith35]

If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.

They paid nearly $300 billion in taxes and yet you persist in parroting the liberal oil company hate talking points. Liberals told you to hate them and you obeyed, its sad really.

What matters is the percentage of income paid relative to other companies, not the total. This is an incredibly easy point to grasp. Would you support taxing a person making $10,000 at 30%, and a person making $1 million at 1%? Do you understand how that compares to companies that receive special tax privileges?

Exxon Mobile is won of the most profitable companies, meaning it should pay one of the highest corporate tax rates. Yet it pays an average of 17.6% in corporate taxes, higher than the average individual effective income tax rate.
Exxon Mobil Dodges the Tax Man Center for American Progress

What I am criticizing is the government picking and choosing corporations and industries to subsidize. That fosters an enormous amount of corruption and rent-seeking and runs contrary to basic free market principles. A corporate socialist is not a capitalist.

And yet Corporate taxation never does what most people think it does. Based on studies of tax incidence much taxes levied on Corporations are actually paid by consumers. If the Capital is mobile, they can be passed on to labor. If supply is elastic consumers pay the tax. But the most important problem with Corporate taxation is, it gives the congress critters a means to pass on savings for campaign contributions. The taxes Corporations do pay should be eliminated and passed on to the owners of the shares for their profits off of the company making it a tax neutral situation.